12-10-2003 03:28									#31
	Remove this text

IMHO, plagues are a pain. My least favorite addition in C3C.

	12-10-2003 05:15									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm sure they can be turned off.

	12-10-2003 05:39									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of Course, plagues are a pain!
But being in total control of the internal events in your civ has always been a real disappointment for me.

I also hope that after a couple games with plagues that you won't be able to predict the effects, that there will be some randomness to it.

	12-10-2003 06:37									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Does anyone else think Rome should be something along the lines of "capital elimination" and not Mass Elmination?

By capital elimination, I mean along the lines of capital risk, capture their capital, and they loose the game (as opposed to any city, or 5 or 10 cities)

	12-10-2003 16:57									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Seems more accurate, indeed.

	12-10-2003 22:41									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't know how easy capitol elimination would be to add to the game, but I do know it would make the scenario too easy. All you would have to do is take a strong force and head straight for the capitol, ignoring all other cities. If you had coastal cities, you could load up ships and drop the troops off close to the capitol. I use this tactic when I am playing multi city elimination (typically 3-4 cities, but it is effective in 1 city). I choose the cities I want to capture and head straight for them, ignoring all other cities.

Plagues can be a pain, but I like the feature.

	13-10-2003 00:40									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It was mentioned in the thread that there is no event script. But would it not be possible to recreate some of the problems of the era with a technology. Technologies are the way to advance in this game but surely it is possible to have a retrograde technology. This might reduce the production of food or trade in each square or the effectiveness of a building like a library. The technology could be called 'Dark Ages' or something equivalent. It would be neat and simple way of evoking the crises of that era. Is it possible though? Thanks in advance.

	13-10-2003 02:16									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

unsure if it's possible, but one could make a tech that makes units obsolete, or to replace them with less effective units. Or improvements. And you can "force" a civ to research it, thanks to the maximal amount of turns needed to research a tech.

	13-10-2003 02:48									#39
	Tired of ads?

I understand your point about capital elimination. the reason I thought it was better was because the sack of Rome signaled the collaps of the civilization, whose borders had been withdrawing under Barbarian expansionism for many, many years.

	13-10-2003 09:01									#40
	Put an end to popups!

Well, how about mass-elimination still but, instead of a SET number of cities, you have to catch a number of 'POINTS' worth of cities captured? Obviously the Capital would be worth the most points, with major towns and cities being next, with Villages being worth the least! That way, you could win in soo many ways, either by capturing almost ALL of Romes smaller outposts, or by capturing 5-6 really MAJOR cities-including Rome itself!
Of course, from the other end, if you don't know HOW your enemy plans to accumulate the 'City Points' it requires for victory, then it makes defense of your empire a little less certain!!!
Anyway, just a thought-but too late for inclusion in the game, I reckon!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	13-10-2003 13:58									#41
	Got spare money?

That's a much better idea.
Shame we won't be playing that version.

	13-10-2003 18:23									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

for us, it's back to the editor then.

	14-10-2003 03:54									#43
	Support Apolyton

Rome was sacked twice first by the Ostrogoths in 410 and in 455 by the Vandals. My suggestion in connection with this is that a player is penalised to a lesser extent if he limits enemy control of the capital to one turn, or only Rome and not Ravenna is taken while ensuring that there is no repeat of the sacking. Rome was hardly doomed when it was sacked in 410. Losing Roman Africa to the Vandals in 439, and its revenues was the real deathblow. That and the efforts to retake it. For instance 300 warships were lost in 460 when Emperor Majorian tried to retake it.

So a simple capital elimination would be rather limited. Instead Ravenna, Rome and Carthage (representing Roman Africa and its revenues) should be part of a triple lock. If all three are lost or if at any point or any one out of Roman hands at one time or another, the West Roman empire should lose.

Is multiple city elimination possible? Rome itself was not the primary capital since the early forth century on account of its isolation from the main transport arteries and Ravenna hardly compared with Rome. But losing Rome temporarily was not fatal while the revenues of Roman Africa continued to flow. I hope multiple city elimination is possible.

	25-10-2003 14:51									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, the Designer Diary is up for the Fall of Rome Conquest. http://pc.ign.com/articles/456/456423p1.html?fromint=1 Not sure if I'm all that impressed, compared to the other conquests. But, maybe it's just the way the diary is written. Guess we'll find out on November 4.

	25-10-2003 19:58									#45
	Remove this text

plenty of room for me to make a bigger and better version.

	25-10-2003 23:50									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Exactly what I thought - and the reason I bumped your thread....

	09-11-2003 06:45									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I will have to wait till Friday. But everything from A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire (a wealth of figures and some useful maps at the end of vol. 2 are useful and instructive - compare the density of cities in Roman Africa or Palestina I&II and Arabia to Gallia and Septem Provinciae i.e. France) to a biography of Theodosius the Great should allow me to make something reasonable. One map in LRE has an order of battle for the empire in the early fifth century. But a basic problem is created by the Civ concept of city shields dictating production in any given city. Africa paid the bills for the Western Empire. It was wealthy and productive but not defended in a way commensurate with its wealth. Though giving plenty of good land without shields should be the answer in that regard.

Could someone with the game offer some words on how good this scenario is, either or both in terms of gameplay and historical authenticity (are there any howlers for instance?). Does the scenario editor offer enough to improve it, if improvement is needed?

	09-11-2003 22:28									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Not sure about the history but....

so far I'm enjoying the scenario. I'm playing as the Celts and have driven the Western romans out of GB using the powerful pillager units. Happened quite easily. I took 5 cities, so only 3 more and W.R. is defeated, not sure what will happen then to Rome.

I don't like the elimination part and am not entirely sure of the mechanics, ie. can I retake a city and have it erased? is it just native cities, or do I have to heavily garrison captured cities? CAn I abandon cities? So it looks like I will be razing everything on the mainland when I land, killing the franks and WRs first.

but fun so far. and I'm not sure how plague works, had one city affected for a couple turns...

	13-11-2003 04:10									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It does sound very interesting and reasonably accurate in that Britain had lost most of its troops when in 406 a usurper Constantine took most of the Roman forces to the continent to support his abortive usurpation. Thanks for replying. I would like to ask a few questions.

How big is the map?

Is either ER/WR playable?

Is there a time limit?

Is there tech progress or is it frozen and the sides given some custom techs each?

Is it the best, worst or middling of the new scenarios\game types that Conquests offers?

Sorry for the questions. I have to wait until Friday for the game.

	13-11-2003 04:49									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I haven’t played enough of the scenario to speak to it at any length, but the AI seemed to be doing well with Persia for the bit I played, so that may be a civ beside Rome to consider.

And from what little I saw, I am a fan of the Roman unit, Heavy Cavalry.

	13-11-2003 06:15									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Glycerius How big is the map?

Huge! And it's very nicely done. Easily one of the best parts of the scenario (uh oh).

quote: Is either ER/WR playable?

Not by design. Given the initial Roman tech and unit supremacy (which the AI can't wait to share with the Barbarians! Grrr!), a smart human player could quickly steamroll one or two of the Barbarian Civs at the start of the game when they are very weak. Probably entertaining to try, and it's easy to create a variant with playable Roman civs, so if you want to do this it's not a problem.

quote: Is there a time limit?

Yes, 150 turns. This sounds like a lot, but it isn't really as I'll discuss below.

quote: Is there tech progress or is it frozen and the sides given some custom techs each?

There are theoretically two tech trees, one for the Barbs and the other for Rome/Persia. However, the Barbs can acquire and research all the Roman Techs, although apparently it doesn't work the other way. Plus the Barbarian-only Tree is VERY short (5 techs?) and the progression is very fast. This could/should have been done differently.

quote: Is it the best, worst or middling of the new scenarios\game types that Conquests offers?

Potentially one of the best, but it suffers from a fundamental problem - the entire first part of the game is basically spent developing your Barb civ to the point that you can start churning out units powerful enough to take on the Romans. Empire Building is what civ is all about, of course, but that's NOT what the Barbarian invasions were based on! Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions since I've only played as the Huns, and even there only 1/3 of the way through (which is when the boredom set in). But why is Attila spending all heis energy researching and trading techs and building cities and road networks? As the Huns, I should ALREADY have a large, nasty army that strikes fear into the heart of the other Barbarians and drives them into the Western Empire. But no, the Huns begin with settlers and weak horsemen and it takes almost half the game to build up an infrastructure capable of spitting out the units required to take on either of the Roman Empires. Maybe now is when the fun begins, but I'm bored to tears already! Why couldn't we START in this position? Soooooo. If you love the whole empire building, researching, exploring and tech trading aspect of civ and feel it belongs in EVERY scenario, then this is for you.